You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why would I show you? I'm just giving you a hint why she left. I'm wasn't continuing her argument.

I don't seem to recall having asked for your opinion on the subject in the first place, actually. It seems more like you decided to make a knee-jerk assumption about the inadequacy of my logic and then couldn't justify it when challenged, so you fell back on the rather disingenous claim that you were speaking for someone else and therefore didn't need to justify yourself. However, it was you who actually made the statement. I'm sure she can speak perfectly well for herself if she has anything further to say. If you choose to make a comment which is critical of someone else's reasoning, then the very least you can do is justify it when asked to do so. Or, conversely, own up to your mistake if you have made one.

ROFL! Poor INFPs, who the hell do they have left now? I used to think of Tolkien as the best case scenario INFP.

When did you change your type? I used to read you in the INFP forums, Babylon. Sly fox. Explains a few things about you. . .

"No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

I am sorry to see another newcomer treated so poorly, ragashee. It seems to be a few people's idea of sport. Fairly unattractive for people who want admiration for their intelligence from my perspective.

Welcome to the forum.

"No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

INFPs can write like this. As an NF, I certainly don't think everything will be ok if I stick to my values. I stick to my values not necessarily because I think I can avoid what is bad but I have values because it makes my life feel more full- having values gives me a purpose in life.

Besides if one is writing a character, the character speaks for themselves, not the author. The character may do and say many things the author never would...but I don't read Tolkien so what do I know!

Some of his works had no emotion. The ones that did display more, such as the Hobbit made it more childlike in nature. If I were to hazard a guess would point to weak Fe. INFPs have (at least) fairly well developed developed emotional worlds.

To a certain degree this is accurate, but I view the emotional depth of Tolkien's works as being modified by several factors: their intended audience; the personal importance of the work to Tolkien; and the purpose for which the book was being written.

Some of his minor children's works (eg. Farmer Giles of Ham, etc) indeed seem fairly superficial, but they were intended to be books for young children after all; Tolkien never seems to have taken himself particularly seriously as a children's writer. The Hobbit was also intended as a children's story, and I believe he originally intended it as a standalone work which he only later incorporated into his middle-earth universe when he began writing LOTR. The emotional depth of LOTR itself is actually quite uneven. To me the characters, their feelings and motivations appear to gain considerable depth and complexity as the story moves along. By the second and third books it frequently embodies profound archetypes and insights into human nature which are relatively rarely seen in the first part. This seems to me to fit closely with the struggle Tolkien had in writing the book, and its slow conceptual development in his mind from another children's strory similar to the Hobbit (his original intent) to the epic work of fiction it became. There is plenty of evidence that Tolkien was fully capable of modifying his writing to fit the needs of his anticipated audience, and I think the emotional development of LOTR largely refelcts his gradual change of intent.

The Silmarillion, which he regarded as his life's work, is a essentially an epic tragedy with significant and powerful elements of romance and strong, if highly symbolic and archetypal characterisation. He deals essentially with themes that embody strong-feeling orientated personal values, such as the conflict between good and evil, beauty and ugliness, love, hate, honour, cowardice, loyalty, and betrayal. The highly idealistic romantic episode of Beren and Luthien appears to have been the most significant work for Tolkien personally. It may not appeal to everyone due to being modeled largely on the style of the ancient nordic sagas, but to say that it is lacking in emotional content appears to be stretching a thin thread of argument to breaking point.

The Children of Hurin, recently published and the only work of Tolkien in novelistic form that was directly based on the Silmarillion, has been garnering highly favourable reviews, every one of which I have read has praised it's emotional power and depth. If I had actually read it myself I would be able to say more.

I have to go now as my INTP wishes to use the computer, but perhaps I will have time to make some further points later...

Most of all, I tend to think that fiction authors who make the most distinct characters are more likely to be thinkers. I can always tell when I'm reading a book by an NF because all the characters are NFs, except the bad ones.

Most of all eh? I think you've got this part backwards. Feelers are most likely to have an understanding of people. Thinkers are more likely to fall into the trap of creating uninteresting characters. Shakespeare's greatest strength was giving an interesting personality to even his most minor characters. Are you going to claim him as an INTP too?

My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

I think an INFP would be likely to make the antagonist as human as possible and even love their bad characters to a degree and place flaws into their protagonist. Writing would be about trying to understand the greater world through replicating it as closely as possible in the fanatasy world.

Originally Posted by Anja
I am sorry to see another newcomer treated so poorly, ragashee. It seems to be a few people's idea of sport. Fairly unattractive for people who want admiration for their intelligence from my perspective.

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks for your comment, I appreciate it

Though I must say it mostly amused me when most of the people who decided to post against me on this chose to display their ignorance rather than provide a properly reasoned argument to the contrary. They only made themselves look silly in the main (Jennifer being the honourable exception, as she actually put forward a reasonable and welll informed point of view which was worth engaging with rather than trying to shore up a flimsy argument with the adhomineum fallacy and usubstantiated opinion).

I think this thread did show me a typological phenomenon which is new for me, however, which can only add to my education as much as it added to my surprise when I encountered it:

I never expected in my wildest dreams to see INT's hunt their prey in packs. But now I have.

fds

Originally Posted by heart

I think an INFP would be likely to make the antagonist as human as possible and even love their bad characters to a degree and place flaws into their protagonist. Writing would be about trying to understand the greater world through replicating it as closely as possible in the fanatasy world.

Good point. This is essentially what he did, though it is very rarely made as explicit in the more widely read books as in the Silmarillion, in which the background and history of Middle-earth is worked out. It is the characters who initially have the greatest power, and potential at least to achieve something positive, such as Feanor the elf or Melkor the (demigod) who ultimately cause the greatest harm by allowing themselves to be ruined by their own pride and impatience at having their own superior gifts held in check, which ultimately turns them to evil. It is the most beautiful (and holy) objects in the world, the Simarils of the title, which cause continuous pain, suffering, and destruction because of the desire they stir in others to posess them; yet this is does not diminish either their beauty or their holiness, nor the capacity to appreciate these qualities of those who will comit cold-blooded murder out of desire for them. Oaths sworn upon honourable principles by good people and adhered to steadfastly lead them to commit savage atrocities, and ultimately to their own destruction, yet the oath does not entirely lose its original high purpose, and those bound by it are as much victims as evildoers, still retaining many of their original good qualities, and therefore the reader's sympathy. Good and evil are never simply taken for granted, but their development in the individual psyches of the characters worked out in meticulous detail. For me it highights deep psychological truths and complexities, despite, or maybe because of its lack of everyday realism.

I think I've said enough for now to make my general point - I thought it would be helpful to explain it somewhat, as I know you hadn't read it. Did that seem something like the kind of book you were talking about?

Ni for entire fantasy world complete with 1000s of years of history and mythology

Fe for the Fe stuff you mention

Ti for the making the entire theory of his world make sense

If he hadn't been such a notorious procrastinator, maybe. But this was a man who was unable to start or finish almost any piece of writing, major or minor, without a combination of support, encouragement and pressure from others. He frequently brought a piece of work almost to completion and left it sitting around for twenty or thirty years. I don't see a judging type there.

If he hadn't been such a notorious procrastinator, maybe. But this was a man who was unable to start or finish almost any piece of writing, major or minor, without a combination of support, encouragement and pressure from others. He frequently brought a piece of work almost to completion and left it sitting around for twenty or thirty years. I don't see a judging type there.

there are nuances of MBTI.

INFJ is a dominant perceiving type, thus "J" or not, the dom is an irrational function... I can definitely see INFJ not finishing stuff if their Ni never turns off.